 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Rubric for peer review
Updated October 24, 2007
Download [DOC 63 KB]
Please indicate the quality of the submission and provide comments in each major section.
| Image characteristics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Quality: Is the image of high visual quality? Is it crisp, clear, and easy to visualize? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It's somewhat unclear. | [ ] It's out of focus or low in quality. |
| Subject: Is the subject of the image easily identified? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It should be more apparent. | [ ] It's difficult to identify. |
| Concept depicted: Does the concept depicted by the image fit within the discipline of ecology? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] Partially. | [ ] It's more closely related to another discipline. |
| Ecological context | ||
| Title: Is the title accurate? Is it descriptive enough to be helpful when someone searches for resources? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It needs better description or minor corrections. | [ ] It does not reflect the submission. |
| Ecological description: Is the ecological significance of the image clearly and accurately explained? Does it include common and scientific names of key species? Does the description provide any key information needed to interpret the photograph? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It needs better description or minor corrections. | [ ] Ecological significane is inaccurate or unclear. Common or scientific names are no included. |
| Accessible language: Are the title and ecological description worded so that a non-specialist who is teaching ecology can understand them? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] There are one or two undefined specialized terms. | [ ] There is significant use of jargon. |
| Ecological core concepts: Are the selected ecological concepts appropriate for the resource? Are these the categories where you would expect to find the resource is you were browsing? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] One concept should be changed. | [ ] These categories are not where I would expect to find this resource. |
| Key taxa: Are the common and scientific names of all key taxa included in sufficient detail? Are they accurate, to your knowledge? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] Requires more detail or minor corrections. | [ ] Names are not included, are inaccurate, or are vague. |
| Geographic and temporal description: Are the time and place described in sufficient detail for educational use? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It needs more detail or some edits for clarity. | [ ] Time and location are insufficiently described. |
| Pedagogical context | ||
| Pedagogical description: Does the pedagogical description clearly explain how the image can be used effectively in the classroom? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It needs more detail or some edits for clarity. | [ ] Classroom use is inadequately described of very unclear. |
| Audience level: Is the image appropriate for the intended audience level(s)? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] Somewhat. It would be useful for some students at this level(s). | [ ] It is inappropriate for students at this level(s). |
| Contribution to Ecoed.net catalog | ||
| Uniqueness: How does this photograph contribute something new to the current Ecoed.net catalog? Will it fill a gap in the existing resources? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] There is a similar photograph in the catalog; however, this submission would contribute new qualities. | [ ] There is a similar photograph in the catalog. This image does not make a new contribution or is of poorer quality. |